Posted: 11/16/2007 11:17:35 AM EDT
|
I was walking through Walmart this morning and given the decorations that were out I would think Christmas was only a day away! Of course what can you expect really. With nearly all of a stores profits for the year being made during the Christmas shopping season, it makes sense to extend that season as long as possible to create more shopping frenzy. It's in the spirit of Jesus savior of retail stores everywhere that I bring you this weeks question. FACTS: The county courthouse is owned by Allegheny County and is its seat of government. It houses the offices of the county commissioners, controller, treasurer, sheriff, and clerk of court. Civil and criminal trials are held there. The "main," "most beautiful," and "most public" part of the courthouse is its Grand Staircase, set into one arch and surrounded by others, with arched windows serving as a backdrop. Since 1981, the county has permitted the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic group, to display a creche in the county courthouse during the Christmas holiday season. Christmas,is the holiday when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they believe to be the Messiah. Western churches have celebrated Christmas Day on December 25 since the fourth century. During the 1986-1987 holiday season, the creche was on display on the Grand Staircase from November 26 to January 9. It had a wooden fence on three sides, and bore a plaque stating: "This Display Donated by the Holy Name Society." Sometime during the week of December 2, the county placed red and white poinsettia plants around the fence. The county also placed a small evergreen tree, decorated with a red bow, behind each of the two end posts of the fence. These trees stood alongside the manger backdrop, and were slightly shorter than it was. The angel thus was at the apex of the creche display. Altogether, the creche, the fence, the poinsettias, and the trees occupied a substantial amount of space on the Grand Staircase. No figures of Santa Claus or other decorations appeared on the Grand Staircase. This litigation began on December 10, when seven local residents, filed suit against the county and the city, seeking permanently to enjoin the county from displaying the creche in the county courthouse. Respondents claim that the displays of the creche violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wallace v. Jaffree (I threw that in for you EOD) In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court sought to refine these principles by focusing on three "tests" for determining whether a government practice violates the Establishment Clause. Under the Lemon analysis, a statute or practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause, must have a secular purpose; it must neither advance nor inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect; and it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. 403 U.S. at 612-613. QUESTION: Does the Christmas creche Violate the Establishment clause of the constitution? Does the Christmas creche violate the "Lemon tests"? and finally Did the court allow the practice to continue? |
| I don't think it violates the spirit of the law intended by our founding fathers but it most likely violates it in our modern interpretation of the separation of Church and state. If the Ten Commandments aren't allowed, certainly anything representing Christmas wouldn't be. I would guess it was removed, though I wouldn't agree with their judgment had it been. |
Bah!! Google should be a violation of the rules. I vote fail for that  On a positive note, if that is the case, I guess I got it right.
|
|
Is it unconstitutional: No (my opinion) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress can make no law. My reading of first amendment would allow states to establish religion at their discretion. Did it pass the lemon test: Yes (my opinion) If this is the correct lemon test: The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The authority did not mandate the display. A display neither advances or hinders religion unless they did not allow the other points of view to have a display. Having a display wouldn't unduly entangle the government. Did the courts allow it: who knows since the lemon test is subjective.  Just my $0.02 |
| But, the first amendment was applied to the states through the 14th amendment with substantive due process. The Civil war taught us that if the states can make their own rules they can abridge the federal rights of Americans. That's why the system changed and began incorporation. |
|
By the BOR Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And the preample states The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; Anyone who could read simple english would say they have the right to any display they want. Of course our legal system has made up this Seperation of Church and State out of whole clothe so of course it is illegal to display any religous symbols. Amazing how the FFs referenced a creator over and over again yet now we can't mention God because it might offend the muslims who have openly declared war against us. Now you say it isn't all muslims but only the radicals. If that is true where is the outcry from these moderate muslims against the deaths of so many other muslims at the hand of terrorists? |
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island. It was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated:
Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:
ETA: Mods, is there any way to change EOD's screen name to Hugo Black? 
|
If the FFs believed in Seperation of Church and State, other than believeing in no nationally sponsored church, then maybe you could explain wqhy this wasn't laid out in the Federalist Papers, where the explained everything? Why in all of our documents is a supreme being mentioned? Why is the term "In God We Trust" on our money? The writings of the FFs make it pretty clear that they never wanted men to be without religious beliefs and to be guided by those beliefs. You also can't seem to reconcile the fact that the Federal Government by telling States they can't have certain religious displays certainly seems to violate the 1st. If you truly believed in Seperation of Church and State then you must believe it wqould be okay for Satanists to sacrifice live animals and even human beings wqho volunteered right? If someone's religion believed in nudity why can't they wqalk down the street nude? certain religions are against medical treatment yet we force them to seek medical treatment for their kids and to get those same kids immunized. Except for the Indians on their reservations we don't seem to allow people to use hallucinogenics to induce their religious visions. So even your owqn qwuotes show that the FFs wanted the Fed to not interfere with people's choices in their religion. By forcing the removal of religious displays the government is doing exactly that. Also howq do you reconcile the fact that at the time the FFs constructed the Constituion that there wqere State sponsored Churches and they didn't have a problem with that? here is a little more context to Jefferson's words. Maybe the mods could change your username to Reno?  http://www.chaseinfosystems.com/Tribute/FirstAmendment.htm Please realize that the words "separation of church and state" do not exist in any of the founding United States Government Documents. In fact, these words were brought into the public conscience just five decades ago, in a 1947 Supreme Court decision (Everson v. Board of Education), in which the Justices referred to these words, but misinterpreted their meaning. The source of these words originated in an 1802 letter from then President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The Baptists objected to the official Connecticut State church of Congregationalism, and they were seeking President Jefferson's help in the matter. Many of the States had official state churches until 1833, as the Constitution forbade the Federal government from establishing an official church, but it did not forbid the States from having such. Jefferson said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Although President Jefferson was partial to the Baptists' position, he believed that the Constitution forbade the Federal government to intrude in state matters. In the Journal of Church and State, American University professor Daniel Dreisbach points out that Jefferson's "wall" had "less to do with the separation of church and civil government than with the separation between state and federal governments.(1)" Dreisbach's research is historically relevant, as the Supreme Court's current "separation" interpretation lacks any constitutional foundation. |
|
Hey, I'm cool with kidding. I've just been away all day speaking to gun enthusiasts! I suppose the dividing line in the constitutional debate here is whether or not a government allowing religious symbols rises to the point where we are uncomfortable with their promotion. It's easy to say that the founders believed in God and had no problem with promoting religion, aside for ma government sponsored and mandated church. The hard question is what happens if the roles were reversed. EOD (AKA Hugo) made some great points. What about a nudist church or a satanist "church"? What if there was a community that was 99.9% satanists and they put up an anti Christian display in their town hall? Would we say that it was wrong then? Would we want to use the 1st amendment to prevent our tax dollars from being spent on it? Remember that rights protect minorities... The tax dollars at work is very important today. More so then it was (IMHO) when this country was founded because so much of our income is diverted to federal programs. any way here's the answer for those who haven't googled it yet. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court concluding that: 1. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612, a "practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause," must not, inter alia, "advance [or] inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect." Although, in refining the definition of governmental action that unconstitutionally "advances" religion, the Court's subsequent decisions have variously spoken in terms of "endorsement," "favoritism," "preference," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same: the Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Pp. 589-594. 2. When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Pp. 598-602. 3. JUSTICE KENNEDY's reasons for permitting the creche on the Grand Staircase and his condemnation of the Court's reasons for deciding otherwise are unpersuasive. Pp. 602-613. (a) History cannot legitimate practices like the creche display that demonstrate the government's allegiance to a particular sect or creed. Pp. 602-605. (b) The question whether a particular practice would constitute governmental proselytization is much the same as the endorsement inquiry, except to the extent the proselytization test requires an "obvious" allegiance between the government and the favored sect. This Court's decisions, however, impose no such burden on demonstrating that the government has favored a particular sect or creed, but, to the contrary, have required strict scrutiny of practices suggesting a denominational preference. E.g., Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246. Pp. 605-609. (c) The Constitution mandates that the government remain secular, rather than affiliating itself with religious beliefs or institutions, precisely in order to avoid discriminating against citizens on the basis of their religious faiths. Thus, the claim that prohibiting government from celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday discriminates against Christians [492 U.S. 575] in favor of nonadherents must fail, since it contradicts the fundamental premise of the Establishment Clause itself. In contrast, confining the government's own Christmas celebration to the holiday's secular aspects does not favor the religious beliefs of non-Christians over those of Christians, but simply permits the government to acknowledge the holiday without expressing an impermissible allegiance to Christian beliefs. Pp. 610-613. ETA: The decision can be found at 492 U.S. 573; County of Allegheny v. ACLU; |